non-biological life possible?

[KerbMav]

I placed this under biology, although I am going to ask for the exact opposite.

Has there been a scientific (!) theory to the existence of non-biological life?

Especially Star Trek is full of sentient clouds, thinking energy particles and living rocks.

How feasible is this idea and has anyone some papers at hand?

Edited July 7, 2014 by KerbMav

[Sky_walker]

Depends on a definition of "life" you choose.

Some definitions allow calling basic self-replicating robots "alive", so in a way: we are already able to produce living... beings.

But it's kinda like.... if you can't achieve something it means that it's a time to change our definition of it.

[Red Iron Crown]

If something is alive, it is by definition biological. Biology is the study of life.

[magnemoe]

If something is alive, it is by definition biological. Biology is the study of life.

yes but most will not see and robot who makes copies of itself alive.

More since it will be robots who build and run a factory making more robots.

More fun is that its probably the kind of intelligent life we will have first contact with.

The other probable scenario is a stone age people. http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2012/177/5/4/first_contact_5_by_olsen1a-d54w8yu.jpg

[vitorboschi]

If something is alive, it is by definition biological. Biology is the study of life.

I guess he meant inorganical life

[KerbMav]

I guess he meant inorganical life

Yes, thank you.

And I also did not mean robots or any other A.I., but naturally developed life completely different from what developed on our planet.

[Red Iron Crown]

I guess he meant inorganical life

That's the same kind of terminology problem. Anything related to an organism is organic, no matter what chemistry the organism uses.

To get off the pedantry train and add something more useful, I don't think there's any real reason that life has to use the carbon-based energy that we're used to here on Earth. Any exothermic reaction could conceivably be the basis for life.

I expect that within my lifetime machines/AI will meet all the classic criteria for life, whether people choose to regard it as such or not. (Edit: I hadn't read your post above when I wrote this, not really relevant to what you want to discuss)

[lajoswinkler]

Only if it "evolved" from organic life in the sense that intelligence did it.

Inorganic chemistry does not support structure of the required level of complexity.

Clouds and etc. from Star Trek - no.

[Tommygun]

The only thing I can think of would be something involving intrinsic semiconductors.

Intrinsic semiconductors are naturally occurring elements within nature.

It's more SciFi than real, but maybe if you had a planet covered in silicon and/or germanium crystals with some lighting thrown in...?

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

The only thing I can think of would be something involving intrinsic semiconductors.

Intrinsic semiconductors are naturally occurring elements within nature.

It's more SciFi than real, but maybe if you had a planet covered in silicon and/or germanium crystals with some lighting thrown in...?

Good direction to take on this I think...

After all, even Nuclear Reactors can form naturally (Only one here on earth, go google, it's very interesting!) so why not other inorganic biological phenomena? O.k, it would be extremely rare, even in a universe as vast as ours, but the possibility is out there... some sort of planet or other space object, riddled with caves, the veins of ores forming a rouch neural network that could possibly hold the ability of self-awareness, if nothing else (after all, even plants rect to their surroundings, even if in a very limited way...)

I think, also, that this could devolve into more of a Sci-Fi Theory thread, than a 'proper' discussion about Biology/Inorganic or not

[Technical Ben]

Presuming any physical mechanism can be a) simulated or replicated via another mechanism, then yes.

That is to say, if you ran a computer running and exact simulation of the real world, it would contain "life" and be "non-biological". The other example is that you could copy such mechanisms and do it with robots. These are two theoretical options, but both would require a lot more resources than biology manages with just the atoms we are made of.

The other question is if life can exist on a different type of biology. I would assume no, as if it could, we would see it here too (or nearby in our own solar system).

PS, for example, the moon shows no silicon life, etc.

PPS, Cmdr. Arn1e that tunnel would seem to fall into the definition of even more less likely than a Boltzmann brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

As with the example above of a computer simulation. If it's more complex than the least likely solution, it's less likely to happen...

Edited July 7, 2014 by Technical Ben

[lajoswinkler]

The only thing I can think of would be something involving intrinsic semiconductors.

Intrinsic semiconductors are naturally occurring elements within nature.

It's more SciFi than real, but maybe if you had a planet covered in silicon and/or germanium crystals with some lighting thrown in...?

No. You need a liquid medium for life to occur simply because the reaction rate and other wonders of physical chemistry will not happen in solids.

This is not earthbiology-centrism. This is basics of chemistry.

[BigFatStupidHead]

A basic requirement for something to be considered alive is that it have a metabolism. Bacteria are alive; fire is not. Viruses are probably not alive by this definition, even though they borrow a metabolism now and then. The silicone cave intelligence is interesting as an example of intelligence without life.

[NASAFanboy]

Viruses are probably not alive by this definition, even though they borrow a metabolism now and then.

By that definition, computer viruses would be the first non-biological organism, as they rely on hosts tokeep their "metabolism" stable.

[Everten P.]

I could imagine a planet being alive just depends on the bull chances you are willing to accept.

But if something doesn't have cells than I can't see it know but who knows because science always changes.

[Rakaydos]

3D printed von newman machine.

First part is bluebrints for a 3D printer that can print the components for itself.

Second part is a 3D printable resource collecter, that can keep the 3D printer supplied with what it needs.

Third part is a 3D printable assembler, capable of assembling all 3 parts from what the 3D printer produces. (combining this with the printer makes the printer VERY complicated, which is why I separate it)

Start with 1 of each, and let the population explode.

[KerikBalm]

That's the same kind of terminology problem. Anything related to an organism is organic, no matter what chemistry the organism uses.

That does sound logical, but thats not the way the English-Scientific language has evolved.

Now the meaning of organic basically means carbon containing. There are many "organic" compounds that were never made in a biological organism. Likewise, there are some compounds produced by organisms that are not considered "organic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

I think it would be best to ask if it is possible to have non-cellular life.

Ie, life that does not consist of solvents enclosed in membranes, wherein the metabolic activity takes place on or inside the membrane

Edited July 9, 2014 by KerikBalm

[Kryten]

By that definition, computer viruses would be the first non-biological organism, as they rely on hosts tokeep their "metabolism" stable.

Metabolism and 'metabolism' are not the same thing.

[lajoswinkler]

3D printed von newman machine.

First part is bluebrints for a 3D printer that can print the components for itself.

Second part is a 3D printable resource collecter, that can keep the 3D printer supplied with what it needs.

Third part is a 3D printable assembler, capable of assembling all 3 parts from what the 3D printer produces. (combining this with the printer makes the printer VERY complicated, which is why I separate it)

Start with 1 of each, and let the population explode.

Unless that machine has the ability to recycle waste using an energy source, it's nothing more than a fancy, glorified physical reaction taking place, like crystalization of the saturated solution. Once the solvent is gone and all of the solute is in crystals, everything stops.

Kind of like something insane made of redstone in Minecraft.

I highly recommend watching this video to everyone, to help with understanding how is life different from a simple chemical reaction.

https://archive.org/details/mars_chemistry_looks_at_life

[palioxis1248]

I read somewhere that it's technically possible for dust/plasma clouds to form self-replicating structures, if sustained appropriately and not dispersed.

[lajoswinkler]

I read somewhere that it's technically possible for dust/plasma clouds to form self-replicating structures, if sustained appropriately and not dispersed.

I don't see how that could be possible. Even if I did, objects similar to coacervates (but on a much grander scale) would be basically impossible to imagine.